The Dark Knight Falls

Warning: Spoiler's ahead!

After the chilling performance in The Dark Knight, the stakes were high for the third installment of the Batman trilogy, and unfortunately The Dark Knight Rises could not rise high enough to meet them.

I was surprised, considering how many good reviews I've heard. It seems the final Batman has the appearance of a good film--an intense score, action-packed fight scenes and the occasional ideological one liner. But it turns out all of this is purely formulaic, and in the end we're left with a regurgitated plot that stumbles around and never really finds a strong, motivating, convincing foundation.

The backstory behind Bane was certainly interesting, but I felt a little disappointed with the unveiling. Were there any hints about Tate's true identity? I missed them. Twists that aren't subtly foreshadowed are just a let down. I'd rather react this way: "Holy plot twist, Batman! That's awesome. Why did I not see that coming?"  There should be clues so that if I went back and watched it again, I'd notice them.

In retrospect, I do realize I should have seen Tate's villainy coming since Batman always seems to fall for the villains in the beginning (see TVTropes: Dating Catwoman and Fatal Attraction), but that's not a satisfying enough hint for me.

Also, I love Anne Hathaway, but I never thought she fit as Catwoman, and I still don't. Although I attribute her annoyingness more to bad writing than bad acting. I cringed through the whole ballroom scene in the beginning: dialogue between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle just felt forced and awkward.

What I loved about Nolan's other two Batman films was how startingly fresh they were to me (note: I do not read the comics and am just comparing Nolan's movies to other Batman films that I've seen). Besides the fact that they were, for all intents and purposes, bringing back the villain from the first movie (since all the "new" villain is doing is "finishing her father's work"), this one felt more like the other Batman films... and that is far from a good thing. I guess some of those Batman films were critically acclaimed, but always thought they were corny and campy.

My boyfriend pointed out that what makes a good superhero movie is a good villain. After all, it is the villain that forces the hero to grow. It is the villain that fuels character development. It is the villain that makes us think. This is what makes The Joker one of the best villain characters in superhero movies. His antics constantly force Batman to question his decisions.

Contrast this to the villains of The Dark Knight Rises: Bane's character was two-dimensional at worst and mysteriously vague at best. Talia was just a female Ra's al Ghul, and she wasn't half as awesome as her father (well, who could ever really live up to Liam Neeson?). Furthermore, why did Talia wait roughly ten years before exacting her revenge? If it was because her plan needed "time to come into fruition," that's just stupid.

The most disappointing aspect for me was that Batman and Robin did not kick ass together. It was obvious from the beginning who Levitt's character was (even if they changed his name and backstory), so I anticipated for the entire movie an awesome action scene where Robin dons his mask and takes his place at Batman's side. And it never happened. Instead they imply that Robin is going to become Batman.

Speaking of Robin donning his mask, Wayne reiterates over and over to Robin that he needs to wear one to protect the people he loves, but 1) we never see him actually listen to this repeated advice and 2) it is not made explicitly clear who Robin would need to protect. I assume it would be the orphanage, but there is never an indication that the orphanage was in trouble because of Robin's identity in the first place, other than Batman predicting it would be.

So, ultimately, Batman failed to deliver on character development and plot development. But that's not really what matters in the end, right? Really it's whether you were entertained. The music was fittingly intense. The motorcycle chase scenes were exhilarating. And let's not forget the explosions! (Remember, the number of plot holes is directly proportional to the number of explosions.) To quote a friend, "It was all plot hole. Just--all of it. But stuff exploded! So whatever."

Too Many Characters: A Case Study (read: rant) of Game of Thrones' Failures

Ned Stark on the Iron Throne: contemplating the state of the
kingdom, or simply trying to remember who Victarion on is?

After slogging my way through roughly 5,000 pages of subplot after subplot, I can finally say I've finished A Song of Ice and Fire. The moments I enjoyed were few and far between, but I won't deny that there weren't any at all. However, by and large the series written by "The American Tolkien" has left me overwhelmingly disappointed.

There are many problems with the series: extraneous detail, like the lists of the houses and signs of every character in the battlefield and the seventy courses they ate at Joffrey's wedding; the amount of time it takes for anything to happen; and the seemingly pointless deaths of major, well-liked characters.  But ultimately, the problems with A Song of Ice and Fire can be attributed to one thing: too many characters.

Having a diverse perspective on major plot events is a good idea. Showing the point of view of the antagonists can sometimes make for entertaining dramatic irony, and it can also help develop interesting villains that are more than just steepled fingers and "muahahaha"s. But with 31 different points of view, there comes a point where I just don't remember who I'm reading about anymore.

Take the Ironmen, for example.  About half the time one of the Greyjoys took the spotlight, it took me a page or two to reach into the depths of my memory and figure out who exactly they were. Same thing for the Dornishmen. With that in mind, I'm not sure why Martin focuses on the Ironmen at all. I'm not sure what the purpose of the plot in Dorne was about in book four, other than to set up Quentyn's plot in book five... which really is only to set up one thing: the freeing of the dragons. I'm sure that could have been accomplished without the 2000-page build up. 

In book one, the Starks are the main protagonists, and even if some of them are unlikeable or frustrating (Ned Stark's idiotic adhesion to honor, even when it leads to his death, and Sansa's blind devotion to Joffrey, despite how clear it is that he is simply an utter jerk) the others are likeable enough. Namely Arya, Jon and maybe Bran (although his storyline is pretty boring). Yet by book four, the Starks have faded to the background. The characters that drew me in have disappeared. Talk about a bait and switch! 

Daenerys, meanwhile, is languishing in Slaver's Bay, accomplishing nothing while making enemies. I suppose it's supposed to be character development but I'm guessing it's simply because the situation in Westeros isn't quite terrible enough yet for her to come in and save the day and therefore win back the throne for the Targaryen name. 

Whenever I do finally become invested in a new set of characters or a particularly storyline, I'm whisked off to another part of the world, which I had quite honestly forgotten about. I think it'd be more entertaining to read one book that focuses on one group or area and then move to another group in a new book. Oh wait, he did do that with book four, and that was the worst one--but the reason for that is it introduced too many new characters, while the old characters focused on an unsuccessful and boring sidequest (Brienne). Sure, Jaime's response to Cersei's letter at the end of book four was absolutely fantastic, but then any satisfaction with that fell to the wayside in book five. Come on already, we've seen all our favorite characters die, we want to see the bad ones get their due.

As a reader, I'm unimpressed. The book fails to deliver the story I want to read, and it takes too long in doing so. In the end, fine, I'll give Martin his due: his painstaking (and often superflous) attention to detail give him room to explore and develop interesting characters. Too bad I can't remember any of their names.